The Bad Sleep Well

White Material (2010) is the latest film from critically acclaimed director Claire Denis, staring Isabelle Huppert as a seemingly fearless white coffee plantation owner in an unnamed French speaking African country on the brink of civil unrest. As a huge fan of both Huppert and Denis this film promised so much and unfortunately failed to deliver. It is possibly the most difficult review I have ever had to write, because although I did not enjoy the film, it is very difficult to find anything wrong with it at all.

As such I will start my review with the positive notion that if I was teaching someone how to shoot a movie, this would be a shining example. Denis really shows her prowess as a director; the film is so smooth and her uses of sweeping wideshots of a beautiful landscape are just a joy to behold. Unfortunately I feel that Denis put too much emphasis on art direction leading to every shot in the first half hour of the film being around 3-5 seconds longer than it should be; this adds artistic effect but in turn detrimentally reduces the pace of the film. This slow pace is also not helped by the decision to play with chronology throughout the film. Denis shuffles through time frames to no great effect and only really confuses matters and slows the proceedings even further.

Another matter of grave importance is character development. Denis once made character development a focal point in her films but in White Material it is strangely nonexistent. A prime example of this is the character of ‘The Boxer’; he is a key to the film and we know nothing about him. This may have been intentional so as to create an enigma but just leads to the audience really not caring about him. This is much the same of other characters in the film; they are either underdeveloped or very contradictory. Isabelle Huppert’s character just does not work; she is so resourceful and yet is blind to everything happening around her. I feel that this is the main downfall of the film, we see no reason why she should stand up to the rebels and it is therefore impossible to sympathise with her cause.

Overall despite another brilliant performance from Huppert, this film falls flat because it essentially has no heart. This leads onto the fact that it just does not contain enough shocking imagery for a film dealing with the slaughter of child soldiers. I am not a fan of unnecessary violence in films but I believe that you must remain true to the subject matter and walk the line between violence and implication. Two films I have seen recently that really achieve that are The Proposition (2006) and A Prophet (2009). White Material is far too slick and smooth, whereas I would have taken the gritty approach and put the camera right in with the child soldiers and let them tell the story. 

Lolita is Stanley Kubrick’s controversial satire about sexual obsession adapted from Vladimir Nabokov’s novel of the same title. Despite the films controversial subject, the film itself leaves much of the more perverse parts of the novel untold. This was mainly due to censorship regulations at the time which left Kubrick frustrated, he later stated that if he knew how restricted he was to be in making this film he wouldn’t have bothered.

Despite these restrictions the film itself is a marvel and in some ways a black comedy littered with brilliant performances. The best of which I believe comes from Peter Sellers, who plays the deranged and altogether unhinged character of Quilty. Aside from this there are also brilliant performances from James Mason as Humbert Humbert and Sue Lyon as Lolita. The level of intensity that these two manage to create on screen together is amazing, with 14 year old Sue Lyon regularly stealing the show with her portrayal of this adolescent femme fetale.

Furthermore, as usual Kubrick’s direction is flawless and the score rivals that of ‘Barry Lyndon’ and ‘The Shining’. Whilst in my opinion this is not the best of Kubrick’s work, it is still excellently crafted and a real joy to watch. The fact that many of the more controversial elements of the film are left untold generally works in its favour, as it creates an almost sickening suspense. Another brilliant aspect of the film is the introduction, a confrontation between Humbert and Quilty. This was a sign of things to come and was not only a duel between characters but also between Mason and Sellers as actors. I also loved the way that this film starts in medias res and then cuts back to the beginning of the story. This was a masterstroke that adds a cutting edge to the film which may have otherwise been absent.

Overall, although this film is directed by Kubrick, credit really needs to go to the cast on this one. Sellers’ performance is mesmerising but I suppose much of that would also be down to good direction. The scene in which Quilty is talking to Humbert in a hotel pretending to be a police officer is one of the best in any of Kubrick’s films and like the film manages so effortlessly to strike a balance between funny and disturbing.

Barry Lyndon is Stanley Kubrick’s loose adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray’s picaresque novel ‘The Luck of Barry Lyndon’. The film is an epic tale charting the rise and fall of a young man up and down the social ladder of 18th century Europe. It has to be said that upon its release this film received mixed reviews, and was dubbed by many critics as ‘Borey Lyndon’; I myself was not a huge fan upon first viewing. But as with every great film, and Kubrick’s films in particular it must be watched numerous times to be appreciated, as such it is now recognised by many as one of the most wonderfully crafted films of all time.

Throughout his career Kubrick strived to remain fresh, never focusing on one particular genre, rather inventing new genres as he went along. In the same way that ‘The Shining’ was not just a horror film and ‘Full Metal Jacket’ was not just a war film, ‘Barry Lyndon’ is by no means just another costume drama. Throughout the film Kubrick manages to subvert the conventions of period dramas and if not for beautiful the scenery and the magnificent setting you would be forgiven for forgetting that you are watching a costume drama at all.

Furthermore, cast performances are generally excellent in this film. It has to be said that it is hard to choose one as a stand out because the cast is so large, this is due to the extent of the story and the longevity of the film. For me though some particular highlights were the performances of Ryan O’Neil and Leon Vitali in the duel towards the end of the film. The tension that is built up between both the actors is incredible and the whole scene is very well acted and directed. If I was forced to choose a stand out performance it would be David Morley, a young actor playing Barry’s son Bryan. Quick spoiler here I’m afraid, I do not usually like giving away the plot in my reviews but here I must make an exception as I love this scene so dearly. The scene that I am referring to is where Bryan explains to his parents that he is dying and asks his father to tell him a story. The portrayal of grief is one of the best to be found on screen and the performance by both O’Neil and Morley is mesmerising and enough to bring anyone to tears. Sadly it seems that Morley did not continue his acting career after Barry Lyndon as I cannot find any record of him being in any other films.

Overall, ‘Barry Lyndon’ is a true outright adventure and in my opinion Kubrick’s second best film after ‘The Shining’. Unlike many period dramas it takes you across the length and breadth of 18th century Europe, representing many cultures bringing fantastic and diverse visuals throughout. How anyone could find this film boring is beyond me and I am glad that this film is now getting the recognition it deserves. To many people it is just one of those films that they never got round to watching, as it was with me for a long time. If you aren’t a huge fan the first time watch it again as I did, and keep watching it until you see this masterpiece for what it is. It is not just one for fans of Kubrick, as a fan of Kurosawa I can definitely see his influence shining through in sweeping scenic wide angle shots and kineticism in the fight scenes, so there really is something for every film fan.

The Exorcist is truly one of the defining films of the horror genre. Upon it’s release it caused mass panic and hysteria in it’s audiences, with instances of people fainting, having fits and even dying whilst watching it. Needless to say that much of this was media sensationalism but the impact and influence this film has had upon people and cinema should not be understated.

I have always had a profound respect for films that break down boundaries and reinvent genres, of which The Exorcist is a prime example. More importantly than this it has stood the test of time. I am not suggesting that modern audiences will have the same reactions to the film as contemporary audiences, but I will say that it is still a very valuable cinema experience. Many films make me feel like a child again; ‘Toy Story’, ‘Beauty and The Beast’, ‘The Lion King’; but none more so than The Exorcist. I have watched horror films from a very young age and I consider myself generally immune to all but the most terrifying of horrors, but in re watching this film I felt exactly the same sense of fear that I did when I was a child.

Everything in this film from the character development to make up builds an incredible atmosphere and is due to how brilliant Friedkin’s direction truly is. Also a particular highlight for me was the performances of Ellen Burstyn and Linda Blair. They have a certain dynamic and in the beginning of the film they are very believable as mother and daughter. I still stand by the fact the scene where Linda Blair is sat giggling in the corner of the bed is one of the most haunting of all time.

Overall, many believe that The Exorcist cannot stand up to modern horrors, and that modern audiences will not have the same experience as they are desensitized. This is simply not true. The film has been immortalized to me personally ever since the day my mother told me she fainted when she saw it at the cinema, and since I saw the video case in my friends dads collection with a bible on top of it, and since I saw videos of men and women of the cloth stood outside cinemas throwing holy water on the people going inside…aside from this though it is also a bloody good film.

Is it a cult classic? Or is it a classic film about a cult? The truth is that this film is the definition of a British cult classic. Recognition of just how good a film it is was a long time coming but it is now rightly recognized as one of the greatest cult horror films of all time. The plot centres around Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) who is sent to a remote Scottish island governed by Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee) to investigate the disappearance of a missing child. The plot itself sounds simple but in truth the film is a psychedelic erotic trip out from start to finish which is a really overwhelming cinema experience.

The film contains stand out performances from both Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee which adds so much depth to the film. Christopher Lee’s portrayal of an apparently civilized man being the instigator of these pagan rituals is truly chilling, and equally powerful is Edwar Woowar’s reaction to this in playing a christian upholder of justice. The film is filled with scenes of eroticism and impromptu musical numbers which really should not work, but strangely enough they do. People appearing in strange animal masks should not be terrifying, it should be funny, but it isn’t. The film itself is filled with contradictions of the horror genre and is itself a flawed film, but despite this it is still probably the most chilling film of all time and I love it. I love just how flawed it actually is and the fact that it still works.

If you have seen this film you will know that this is embodied in the encounter with ‘The Wicker Man’; a fun filled occasion of music, dancing and sacrifice. All that is left to say is that this is a must watch film and one of my favourite horrors of all time. At the end on the film it gives you a feeling like no other film could…just pleased don’t watch the remake by accident.

George A. Romero’s ‘Night Of The Living Dead’ (1968) is undeniably a classic. To say that this film was made on a tight budget would be an understatement, it was literally made on a shoe string. Many people would argue that a low budget doesn’t always mean a great film, and they would be right. I have seen countless examples of low budget films that were absolutely awful, ‘Lesbian Vampire Killers’ of last year is a great example. However, what a tight budget does is force the film maker to use all of their initiative and resourcefulness to try and make the film a success; if the film maker is good then the movie can be great without relying on a budget. Fortunately in George A. Romero we have the absolute master of the horror genre and a brilliant director, therefore the resulting film is one of the greatest horrors of all time and is still terrifying to this day.

There are many important aspects to this film, none more important than the use of Duane Jones, an African American man in the role of the hero or leading man. It was made towards the end of the Civil Rights Movement and was one of the first horror films to have a black leading man. This is excellent as it challenged the audience of the time to not only except this man as their equal but as their hero.

Another fantastic thing about ‘Night of the Living Dead’ is found in its simplicity. This is grass roots horror that pretty much rewrote the rulebook. Horror today in the main relies on special effects and before that relied on make up; an amazing example is Rick Baker’s Oscar winning work on ‘An American Werewolf in London’; however when watching ‘Night of the Living Dead’ you will notice that the ‘zombies’ do not generally have heavy make up on, and yet they still manage to remain scary. This is all to do with Romero’s impeccable direction. Simple shots of hands grabbing people through boarded up windows have you screaming at the screen and guessing who is going to be ripped apart next.

Overall, it is rare to say a film is a perfect example of how good a genre can be but Romero’s classic certainly does show how good a horror film can be. Many would still consider it to be the greatest horror of all time, I am not of this opinion, but it will still always remain on a pedestal in my mind due to its influence upon character archetypes, horror settings and future low budget productions.

My Left foot is a touching story about the life of Christie Brown, a very talented author, painter and poet who had severe cerebral palsy. The film is an adaptation of Brown’s autobiography of the same name. For those of you who have not seen this film, make it next on your to do list. The whole film is engrossing from start to finish and contains dynamic characters and some of the best performances in cinema history. The film plays out through Brown’s life chronologically, whilst he is waiting to make a public appearance. I’m afraid that is all I will tell you about the plot, you will have to see it for yourself, I would hate to rob you of such a truly remarkable cinema experience.

I will first focus on performances as they are so integral to the films prowess. As most of you will know, Daniel Day-Lewis won a Best Actor Oscar for this performance and never has one been more deserved. Many argued at the time that an actor with cerebral palsy should have been cast in the film, but these views were soon silenced after seeing how mind blowing Day-Lewis’ performance was. He manages to portray so magnificently the feelings of frustration Brown felt towards platonic love and the ignorance of people that believed that his illness impacted upon his overall intelligence. There is really no more that I can say about Day-Lewis’ performance, apart from see it for yourself. There are also brilliant performances from Huge O’Conor who plays young Christie in one of the best scenes in the film where he first uses his left foot to write and not to mention Brenda Fricker who also picked up an Oscar for he heartfelt portrayal of Brown’s loving mother. All of the actors in this film walked the fine line of the portrayal of the disabled, and all of them simultaneously make you forget that the line even existed around 5 minutes into the film.

Although the film is almost hijacked by the performances of Fricker and Day-Lewis, there is also a lot to be said for the brilliant direction of this film. There are so many beautifully shot scenes such as Christie’s first rejection by a teenage girl, his speech therapy and his falling in love with the doctor who tutors him. There are so many other powerful aspects of the film, non more so than the portrayal of Brown’s siblings, who’s love for him is so important to the tone of the film.

Overall the true triumph of this film is that it is not about feeling sympathy towards Brown, it is about empowering him and showing his creative genius to the world. This film will undoubtedly always be remembered for its performances and its portrayal of the life and trials of a true artistic genius.

I would like to start the review of this film by admitting that it may be slightly biased. The truth of the matter is, I love Ricky Gervais…there I said it. I believe wholeheartedly that he is a comic genius; anyone who has seen The Office (UK) or Extras will know what I am talking about. I thought that was important to get off my chest as I am reviewing a film about the ability to tell a lie. Now onto the film…

For those of you who haven’t seen the film, it is set in a world in which human beings never considered the concept of telling a lie. Ricky Gervais plays a loser down on his luck who one day invents the lie and therefore wields an extreme power. He goes on to invent ‘the man in the sky’ and fictional films, earning him great wealth and worldwide fame. The concept of the film is highly original and for that alone it is definitely worth a watch. It has to be said that whilst the concept of the film is impeccably good, I can’t help feeling that it could have been executed so much better. The screenplay, whilst decent, is not the best that Gervais can produce and relies too heavily upon his brilliant delivery. This renders other characters in the film spectacularly unfunny in every sense of the word, with the exception of Jonah Hill, who gives a slightly above average performance.

As a die hard Ricky Gervais fan it was at times quite difficult to watch. The reason for this wasn’t because the film is bad, it is more because it is far too polished and doesn’t have any of the cutting edge humour that the rest of his work has contained. The closest he comes to that humour is his mocking of the bible which gives the film quite a strong message, this I feel is enough to bring it away from being your standard rom-com. Overall it has to be said that it is a decent film that is worth watching despite its fairly poor execution. “Oi! Brent” please go back to work with Stephen Merchant, he hasn’t yet caught the Hollywood bug.

‘Forgotten Silver’ is a mocumentary made by Peter Jackson that centres around the lost works of legendary fictional film maker ‘Colin McKenzie’. As a prank it was executed perfectly, fooling a nation and even resulting in New Zealand’s national museum contacting Jackson because they wanted to set aside space for a display of McKenzie’s work.

Whilst this in itself is a great achievement, the film itself is also very well made. Jackson made this film on a shoestring and his direction of the ‘old footage’ was impeccable. Particular highlights for me were the shots of the first flight of a plane and the death scene which is ‘caught of camera’ showing McKenzie following a combatant of the Spanish civil war. The subtle comedy is brilliantly executed and it really is difficult to try and find something wrong with this film. I would highly recommend this film…if you can find it. It is very elusive, but I finally found a second hand Danish import from a man in the south of France…yes it really is that hard to find on region 2 DVD.

Throne of Blood’ is Akira Kurosawa’s screen adaption of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth set in medieval Japan and in my opinion the best Shakespearean adaptation of all time. It is rare to see a film that takes a source material and does so much with it, whilst remaining true to the text. I obviously do not need waste time in explaining the plot as it is known to all (if not I would suggest acquiring a complete works for around £20/$25), so I will focus on the merits of the film itself.

Firstly, the film is very well cast and contains a stand out performance from Toshiro Mifune, who as many of you will know is present in most of Kurosawa’s great works until their falling out after the shooting of ‘Red Beard’. Mifune’s performance in this film is one of the great oversights of cinema history, and in my opinion easily stands up to De Niro’s ‘Jake La Motta’ and O’Toole’s ‘T.E. Lawrence’. The brilliant performance culminates in the most spectacular fashion with Mifune suffering a dramatic human pin cushion death at the hands of his own archers. Mifune manages to capture the look of desperation in a man that knows he is about to die, and uses the on screen energy he is so famous for to great effect.

In terms of direction we are truly watching the master at work. The use of wide shots of landscapes is truly mesmerising, and in many cases creates an overwhelming sense of suspense. This is a huge achievement in itself as creating suspense in a film where the audience already knows the outcome is no mean feat. There is extraordinary use of fast cuts and kineticism in the mise en scene which keeps the film going at a fast pace. This accompanied with brilliant tracking shots of peoples feet makes you feel like you are watching an action epic, when in actual fact there is very little in terms of action in the film.

Despite the fact that Kurosawa is also famed for his scriptwriting prowess, I believe that his main triumph in ‘Throne of Blood’ is his outstanding use of silence in scenes of dialogue. It is also very important to mention that whilst this film is fast paced, it is also subtle in the sense that rather than showing us scenes of murder, we are often left in another room for the culprit to return from the deed. Whilst at times this could be considered frustrating, the scenes are directed so well that it is a tool used to great effect.

Overall, I would highly recommend this film to any fans of cinema and/or Shakespeare. The performances are outstanding and Kurosawa’s direction is the best I have seen from him. Many may disagree but as an adaptation I believe it surpasses his later and more recognised film ‘Ran’, which I would also like to highly recommend (review of Ran coming soon)